|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 18> |
| Author | |||
GM Luna 
New Poster 
Community Manager Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Location: Illyriad Status: Offline Points: 2042 |
 Topic: Eagles Eyrie surrenders to Harmless?Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 11:33 |
||
|
Closing the thread as I said I would.
Luna |
|||
|
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk
|
|||
 |
|||
|
Grego
Postmaster 
Joined: 09 May 2010 Location: Klek Status: Offline Points: 729 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 09:40 |
||
|
"what did H? gain out of the Consone War .?"
Huge amount of gold and equipment, just to mention most palpable. Sorry to hear that you were timed out, I bet it was interesting reading : ) |
|||
|
|||
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 09:23 |
||
I wrote a huge post and then the browser "timed out" and not it is gone ... there goes my spare time  Anyway the short version. Since Luna prohibited the current politics I will stick only to a fast point in the historical examples. All of them, to my best of knowledge, after the war campaigns which they wages for different reasons, reverted to a state of peacekeeping after reaching their goals or when the reasons for their expansion ended. The Romans, wisely understanding that even if they no longer desired war, other people still did and they WOULD come to their cities eventually had the credo "si vis pacem para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). Going to war doesn't de facto mean that you want one. None of the "good at war" countries did historically wage everlasting wars and they eventually stopped when there was no reason for them to continue, realizing that war was a mean to an end and not just a hobby. In this case all the people that point fingers about H? wanting war, fail to provide with the obvious missing point. WHY .?. We stand nothing to gain (even if we DO win - what did H? gain out of the Consone War .?. ) and we put everything at stake, so why would we want one .?. Just stop and think about it for a moment.  P.s. Read a bit on Epaminondas if you have the time. It is a good example of the flux and confusion of power around wars : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaminondas |
|||
|
|||
|
Silverlake
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 15 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 417 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 05:22 |
||
Are you still here??? You have been obsolete for so long, isn't your cheese getting moldy? |
|||
|
|||
|
Rill
Postmaster General 
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 04:37 |
||
|
"if H? doesn't want war, it should make different choices"
qft by someone who does not want war and therefore chooses not to be involved in H?s game(s). Leave the dogs to their vomit, find something better to do with your lives. Said with love to all my friends in Illy.
Edited by Rill - 30 Oct 2013 at 04:40 |
|||
|
|||
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 519 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 04:10 |
||
This is a game. Comparing it to the real world is interesting. I don't feel the parallel is accurate, but I'll play with the idea. As do you, I will start with the USA. The USA has been in a near constant state of war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States So, do the citizen's of the USA "want" to be at war or can their luck really be that bad? In the current time, most US citizen's do not want to be at war and most are never at war. But, most US citizen's don't mind supporting war. We elect leaders that devote a lot of our tax money to ensuring our soldiers are the best trained and equipped in the world. The US army is currently an all volunteer force. Do the volunteers "want" to be at war? I read a lot. In the last 4-6 months I've read the following books that provide some insight into the minds of people who join the military. "All American Sniper", "Into the Fire", "Absurdistan" and "Unbroken". I've read a lot more books stretching back decades by individuals who've fought (or participated) in wars. The one clear text is that these people do indeed want to be in the middle of a war. It's clear there is a pecking order in the military with those with the greatest interest in fighting gravitating to the jobs with the most fighting. One overarching theme expressed in every military biography is that once a sane, intelligent person get's experience in war, he/she looses his desire to be at war. So, although most American's do indeed "not want war" those individuals are not actually in wars. But, those that do participate do want to be in war. That is what they volunteer for. It's not why they stay, that's a different discussion. Those in charge (and those that vote for those in charge) want war for reasons that sadly parallel the reasons people in games give. Saying that the president that orders troops to war doesn't want to do that is silly. Of course he/she wants war, he/she is choosing war over other available (perhaps less desirable) options. That individual may want war for "legitimate" reasons but to suggest that somehow they are "forced" to fight is silly. The USA has never fought a strictly defensive war for it's survival. You mention Pax Romana, let's look at that. Pax Romana was a period of "relative peace" for Rome. I'm no historian, but according to Wiki it lasted from 27 BC to 180 AD. So, if you look at the wars fought by Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Rome#2nd_century_BC), you see that during those roughly 207 years Rome was at war someplace for 61 years. That means Rome was at war 33% of the time presented as a shining example of how Rome "didn't want war". This is a time when Rome held sway over nearly 100% of the accessible (to Roman technology) world and yet still managed to be "at war" 1 in every 3 years. Again we see a nation depicted as "not wanting war" but even during it's most peaceful period, it's in a near constant state of war. It's also a nation that moves from a levy (or draft) based defensive military to a volunteer (non-citizen) based offensive military. A nation who's people "don't want war" but who do not mind actively supporting those that do want war (for whatever sociological-economic reasons). Romans, like Americans, were perfectly happy "wanting war" as long as they were not personally fighting in the war. Sparta went through the exact same transition. From a levy/draft based state military to a "volunteer" or non-citizen based military. Probably for similar reasons. Populations that prove good at fighting realize that although they personally do not want to fight, fighting is the reason they are secure. From the examples you present, those population continue to support the subset that desire conflict as well as the active necessity to "push the conflict" further from home with some sort of sociological-economic "volunteer" force. I.E. They want war. Of course the people in all the nations listed "want war". That is why the populations of those nations initially fight wars in large numbers and that is why those populations continue to support war with their wealth and political support as they grow secure. Not wanting to fight in war in RL and not "wanting war" are two separate and distinct concepts. In today's world of drones, robot conflict, suicide bombers and other standoff weapons it easier and easier for any population to "support" war because so few actually participate in the actual war. Yes, nations that are good at war choose (or "want") war because winning wars is one tool "they feel" helps keeps them secure. Martin Luther King did not want violent conflict (war). Nelson Mandela did not want violent conflict. Mahatma Gandhi did not like violent conflict. etc... Now, how often did those individuals or the movements they inspired actively inflict violence on others? There are real world examples of populations that both say they do not like violent conflict and prove it by going out and sucking at violent conflict. People supporting every one of those causes died. People in every one of those causes lost every "battle". That is what people look like that don't want war. There are probably a lot more examples throughout history but most people that do not want war do not last long. These last examples of peoples that actually "do not want war" are not H? BTW, H? is now getting embroiled in it's 3rd world war. If Neville Chamberlian had been involved in the crisis moment leading to 3 world wars, yes, I'd question if he really wanted peace. You would not? The Greeks are a fascinating example. Like H? and it's wars, the Greeks have been involved in a series of financial crisis. I believe, that somewhat based on the decisions the Greeks have made and are making, they are choosing to be in a financial crisis. If that isn't what the Greeks want, then they should make different choices. Like the Greeks, if H? doesn't want war, it should make different choices. |
|||
|
|||
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 315 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 03:06 |
||
I'm a little confused on this point. Hasn't H? said time and time again that their only permanent alliance is with Dlord? And don't they also intentionally keep secret any other potential long-term allies? I'm not as old a player as many people around here, so maybe someone can offer some insight; but have H? always sided or been sided with by the same handful of alliances? Should I just assume at some point that they're basically permanent confeds even if no one is willing to admit it? I think I liked all this better when it was just H? trying to enforce the terms of EE's peace treaty, and not actively trying to re-form "the Coalition" in a very public fashion. I have trouble understanding how the call to arms of all Coalition alliances solely against EE isn't a bit excessive.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 315 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 02:34 |
||
Oh. In that case, I guess declaring on H? might have been a waste if they just ended up fighting H? and no one else. By that logic, sure. I guess declaring on the smallest and weakest alliance that was on that side of the war is probably the best way to incite the others.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 30 Oct 2013 at 02:29 |
||
Trove War II? 
|
|||
|
|||
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Posted: 29 Oct 2013 at 23:27 |
||
Many consider this the Great Trove War after a several month "collect the dead and brace yourself" time frame.
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 18> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Eagles Eyrie surrenders to Harmless?
Topic Options
Salararius wrote:
)